I agree. Although I do believe abstinence is the best route, I know people will have sex and therefore need to be educated in ways to protect themselves. I also agree that sterilization should be available for those that do not want children at all.

As I said - I'm a birthcontrol/condom baby. My mother used both, and hello here I am.

I don't think that this is an issue that will ever be cut and dry, nor do I think that abortion will ever be made illegal. I will be satisfied when women are educated about the fact that it isn't their only option, and when they understand every possible option. (Some are, some aren't.)

I believe that the psychotic protestors are on the WAY wrong path. The way that I live my belief that abortion is wrong is to tell others of my experiences, I only go to doctors that do not perform abortions, (yes I ask) and I volunteer at the crisis pregnancy center. If a woman has gone through counseling and still wants to have an abortion, I go with her and hold her hand so at least she isn't alone, and to be there for her if she changes her mind.

- I am pro choice. I don't think that we should be making choices for others.

-Even sterilization is not 100% effective. I know of at least one woman who got pregant while nursing her 2 month old, 2 months after her husband's vasectomy. (She didn't abort, but I wouldn't blame her if she had! The woman had 3 kids in 3 years!)

-It is completely unrealistic to expect married couples who don't want (more) children to not have sex. Abstinence might be a good answer for college students, but not for all women in all situations.

-One of the most disturbed kids I ever worked with in child psych was a 7 year old who was the product of a gang rape ... he knew it. Even if a child who is the product of rape is adopted out, by forcing that woman to complete that pregnancy, changing her entire lifestyle, forcing her to go through the pain and trauma of labor, dealing with people asking questions about her pregnancy or passing judgment on her for being pregnant, making her to re-live that rape every day until that child is born is cruel punishment to a victim. Then she also gets to worry that this child will find her someday, after she has worked so hard to get through the emotional trauma of the whole situation, she might have to then explain it to her husband and kids. Isn't it enough that she has to deal with the original trauma?

-Although I've had two kids, my primary care doctor still refuses to authorize a tubal ligation for me, because I'm divorced and might get married again and want a baby with my new husband. This, in spite of the fact that I'm on some really scary medications for Crohn's which state that I must prove I'm on birth control before a doc can prescribe them! Get a new primary care doc is the standard answer.. this is next to impossible when you need referrals for things every two weeks. I'm stuck with her until I don't need a specialist's care so frequently (which is quite possibly, never!)

- I left one Catholic church where the priest was organizing some of these psychotic protests at the local WomanCare. That clinic happened to be the place where all the college women went for their routine gynecological visits because it was only $4 a visit. Not everybody going into one of these establishments is going there for an abortion. Some are going for birth control, some are just going for pap smears. Those protesters make me sick.

That's it for now, I think!

Dee

My earlier response was a little harsh and I am sorry about that.

Insurance will not cover unnecessary prcedures-you will have to pay for it out of your pocket.

The chances are slim that the vas won't take. So, if you would have an abortion ANYway, what's the problem? It's a means to avoid it isn't it? NO medical procedure comes with a 100% guarantee.

There are so many incidents where a "couple" decides they never want children. Then tragedy hits and one dies. The person remaining moves on and finds another love who DOES want children...

I am unsure if any legal ramifications exist for a Doctor who performs such operations without psychological evaluation. They may be vulnerable somehow. (Where are the legal eagles?)

This is one of those issues that people may never find common ground.

That's why, although a vasectomy is easier than a tubal, I'd probably get fixed instead of Mr. valkyrie -- I know that I never, ever, ever want children no matter what, but maybe he would someday if we weren't together and he was with someone who desperately wanted them.

I'd get a tubal tomorrow if I had health insurance that covered it or the money. Unfortunately, I have neither health insurance nor money right now, so it's not going to happen. I don't know about the legal ramifications for doctors -- personally, I don't think there should be any legal risks for a doctor who performs a sterilization on someone who requests it. I know I'd have a hard time finding someone to do the operation since I haven't had kids -- from all I've heard, it's much more difficult for a woman without kids to get sterilized than for a man. Lovely.

Now I don't know this for a fact, but I am assuming it's because a vasectomy is more easily reversible.

This is so true. I had a friend who recently was going to get a tubal ligation. She's in her mid-30s and has had a child, so she finally, after 6 months of meeting with the doctor, got approved to do it (you have to be really persistent if you want to do this!). Her health insurance was even going to cover it. Then, she found out, even after health insurance "covering it" she had a co-pay of $1500!!!! Unfortunately, that was so unexpected and beyond her means that after all that, she wasn't able to get the surgery.

I also have met with doctors, as I indicated before, but they basically laughed in my face. They were somewhat sympathetic to my plight, actually, but they basically said, "It ain't gonna happen."

Re: vasectomies being reversible. What you say makes sense. However, I would point out that, as I have been doing some reading lately, I have learned that the success rate for reversal of vasectomies decreases sharply as time goes by. I believe I read that if it's not done within three years, the success rate drops off (or maybe it was 7?). This is why they often resist doing vasectomies for males still in their 20s. Even if you're in your late 20s, 7 years later, you are still young enough to have lots of babies, and change your mind! And if you change your mind then, it might be too late. I'm not sure about the liability an individual physician incurs, and it doesn't seem fair anyway, but ethically, if I was a physician, even knowing myself, I still wouldn't do it, knwoing that some people WILL change their minds, and I would have taken away their opportunity to choose.

I think that's part of it, but I think that society's obsession with women wanting to have kids is part of it too. It seems really, really hard for many people to believe that there are women who have no desire for children -- people say things like "You'll change your mind" or "Someday you'll meet the right man and want to have his babies" or "All women want children" -- crap like that annoys me to no end.

I don't think it's an issue about women's rights. If it was consensual sex, then it is as just as much a man's issue as it is a woman's. If we can slap a man with all kinds of child support once the child is born, then they should have some right to what is equally their child before it is born. We don't have the right to take a child away from its father when it's born, so we shouldn't beforehand, either.

^ all Im saying.

oooooh!! pick me! pick me!

i am pro-life, and i am pro-pill, pro-condom, pro-all that!!! :) bring on the sex-ed classes that show herpes, warts, the clap.....all that! scare the hoo-hah outta ppl! you have to know ALL the facts (or you NEED to know) b/4 engaging in sexual activity. i'm all for brown bag specials and free birth control pills......i'm just not all for abortion AS birth control.

I'm not sure how it's just as much a man's issue as it is a woman's. The man doesn't have to carry the baby for nine months. He doesn't have to deal with the irreversible changes to his body and emotions. He doesn't have to deal with the emotional scars of adoption or abortion. He CAN just run off and not pay child support if he wants to. There aren't a bunch of single dads out there trying to raise kids on their own because their wives ran off.

Although personally I think that if a guy can prove that he told his girlfriend that he would want her to get an abortion if she got pregnant (hmmm, sex contracts, anyone?) and that he would pay for half of the abortion, I DON'T think we should be able to force him to pay child support. Just as I think it's unfair to force a woman to support a child she knew she didn't want, I don't think it's fair to do the same thing to the men.

i haven't read all 170 some odd posts, but here is my stance.

I am pro-choice to an extent. I don't think ladies should be going around and sleeping with everyone without protection and then if they get pregnant, they have abortions... multiple times.

However, I swing more toward the pro-choice side when the mother's life is in danger. To have abortions done away with completely may not leave this option open for high risk mothers and potential mothers, like myself. I can't have an unplanned pregnacy. It would be harmful to me and very harmful to the future child. However, if my life was in danger for having a child, I would not have the child. I would rather stop the pregnancy and adopt one of the zillions of children that need a home than to pass away from child birth and have my child grow up without a mother/family.

pro-choice

This might be a bit off-topic, but tell me this... Why can't someone be considered a feminist w/out having to believe in abortion? I mean, why has an obscure medical procedure become the defining factor for women's rights? I happen to be anti-abortion, but I am all for women's rights, so where do I stand?

You stand with many, MANY women who share your feelings.
It doesn't have to be all or none-even though it's an arguable point. You are part of a crowd called independent thinkers.

This isn't a topic like piercings or even premarital sex. Most of those who are against it, deeply believe it is ending a child's life.

Sometimes I wonder, when that special day comes, who all will say-

"We're having a fetus!"

Women's rights include the right to choose. I don't think anyone can be "all for women's rights" if he would try to dictate that she can't have an abortion.

What else does women's rights include?

-Rudey

I think you can be a feminist and say that an abortion may not be the best decision for yourself. When someone starts saying that other women do not have the right to choose what is best for themselves and their bodies, I don't consider that person a feminist. Just my opinion although I know many won't agree.

Don't like the idea of abortions, but I don't believe the choice should be taken away. So...pro choice.

What I find hard to understand is how some people are against the death penalty and yet pro choice. It really does seem to be a contradiction. IMHO, there is a better argument for being for the death penalty and against abortion than pro abortion and against the death penalty.:confused: ...unless you want to get into the viable life discussion-then, you've just come full circle yet again.

I also find it hard to understand how people can be for the death penalty and against abortion. Then you have people like Paul Hill that take the law into their own hands and kill a doctor for performing abortions and a bodyguard who was simply protecting his client.

I don't honestly feel there is a better argument for either position simply because from a religious standpoint I dont' think we should be able to dictate punishment in the form of vengeance or retribution.

When innocent people die in both situations no argument should exist at all. Of course, my opinion.

I can't claim to speak for everyone, but for me it's pretty simple.

The person on death row did something wrong. Probably a lot of things wrong.

The unborn child hasn't done anything.

The person on death row had a choice in his/her destiny. He/she could have chosen not to commit those crimes.

The child didn't have a choice in being concieved.

So you mean to tell me that everyone that has been sentenced to death or has been on death row was guilty? They were all bad people?

Have you or anyone else you know ever been accused of something you didn't do?

And people on death row don't always have a choice in choosing their destiny. If they did not commit any crimes (does happen) their destiny is not for their own choosing...

I'm guessing that most people who are pro-death penalty would answer "no" to this question. White middle class people don't often have worries about being falsely accused of crimes and wrongly convicted. It's too bad really.

Well, what I was trying (in a clumsy way) was to show how it really boils down to valuing life.

Important point here-I would never judge a person who has chosen to have an abortion, it's not my place. Just because I am against the act does not mean I condemn the person who has chosen that route. I think there's enough inner turmoil around that decision no outside criticism is warranted or necessary.

Damasa-When innocent people die in both situations no argument should exist at all. Of course, my opinion.
This is an excellent point. It cuts both ways.

Religion-Upon fertilization, the baby has a soul.
Science-viable
Pro-choice-the extreme would be the freedom to kill the baby anytime the mother chooses. (Partial birth abortions)
Question-At what point -outside the health of the mother-is it NOT OK to kill a baby?

Side note-seems many pro-choice people in the news also support PETA. Hmmmmmmmmm

I don't understand why this is a problem. I'm a pro-choice vegetarian who is against the death penalty.

Well, I don't believe in the death penalty, but I digress from that argument...

Well according to the March for Women's Lives, the term "Women's Rights" incorporates quite a few things...

We won't get into that because it is too OT...

I do not judge any woman who decides to do this; in fact I try not to judge anyone for anything. That said, I cannot act like I do not think this action is wrong. That is my point... I feel as though I am viewed as a chauvinist b/c I do not believe in abortion.

I am sorry; I think it is morally wrong. I am not saying that I feel everyone has to have my moral beliefs, but I cannot say that I will feel it is okay for others to do this when I feel it is quite wrong.
It would be much easier for me to just agree, and I have thought about it, but my conscience will not let me.

So does it come down to either being Pro-Choice or being religious? Why am I closed minded for choosing my side? I feel as though I have thought about this until my brain has bled. Maybe I am just having a catharsis here, but I feel like this is actually a good forum for this debate.

Wow that's another thread! :)

First, I still want to know when is it NOT OK to kill the baby???

Now, PETA and abortion
Partial Birth Abortions have been proven to the satisfaction of many scientists to induce pain. It is still controversial at how early a point the baby feels pain.
A pain expert claims that a form of late-term abortion, banned under a new federal law, would cause a 20-week-old fetus to suffer "severe and excruciating" pain.

"Into the mind unborn" - A Summary New Scientist 19 October 1996, p 40Premature babies can be kept alive from as young as 24 weeks. There is thus a significant overlap between late fetuses and early infants. It remains unclear to what extent reflex reactions or incresed hormone levels indicate a subjective experience of pain.

From Peta Home page-

1.Compare that to-"Commando Chicks. They’re trying to stop the year-round killing of 9 billion birds who are sensitive, feeling beings, just like dogs and cats."..."Warning! This package contains the decomposing corpse of a small, tortured bird," at supermarkets everywhere.
2.(Farmed animals)...they suffer from extreme forms of abuse and neglect, from intensive confinement to forced starvation to body mutilations like debeaking, castration and dehorning without painkillers.
3.PETA has always maintained the commonsense idea that fish, like every other animal, can feel pain and suffer. Now, findings from a new study conducted by Edinburgh University and the Roslin Institute in the U.K. have proved exactly that.
4.Federal law says that in slaughterhouses, cows, pigs, and lambs must be stunned before their throats are slit, (PETA call for a boycott)... to ensure that animals killed for its stores are not grossly abused.
5.Their video-Chew on This-...Not only does vegetarianism spare billions of animals from horrific suffering, it also spares your waistline.

Too bad PETA doesn't give a rat's behind about the suffering of unborn babies, they appear to be pretty effective.

PETA's purpose isn't to advocate for unborn children. It exists to advocate for animals. There are plenty of anti-abortion orgs out there. Why should it be PETA's job?

JAM I adore you but...

Honestly, I'm not a member of PETA but I don't give a rat's behind about the suffering of "unborn babies" either. Maybe that sounds cruel and heartless but that's fine with me. I care about the women who don't want to have a child -- they shouldn't be forced to do it against their will, period. What about their suffering? If this is about suffering, I can't think of many things that would be worse than being forced to carry a parasite around for nine months of misery -- and yes, that's exactly what a fetus is to a woman who doesn't want it.

You know, I'm morally opposed to eating meat, so I don't do it. Mr. valkyrie doesn't do it either and I don't think I could ever be in a relationship with someone who did. Maybe for fun I'll start going to restaurants and holding up pictures of bloody cows when other people are eating meat. Maybe I'll get my friends together to block Outback Steakhouse and taunt the people going there. Or wait, maybe I'll realize that my view is my view and I'll leave other people alone and let them live their own lives and make their own decisions -- even though I find their behavior morally reprehensible. That's a novel idea, isn't it?

Valkyrie-Or wait, maybe I'll realize that my view is my view and I'll leave other people alone and let them live their own lives and make their own decisions -- even though I find their behavior morally reprehensible. That's a novel idea, isn't it?

Best point made on the thread.

We all have our passions. Can you tell this is one of mine?:)

Actually, you triggered a flashback to the 60's and remind me of a song from "Hair".

MY CONVICTION
You know, kids; I wish every mom and dad would make a speech to their teenagers and say "Kids, be free, be whatever you are, do whatever you want to do, just so long as you don't hurt anybody. And remember kids, I am your friend."

I used to live and die by some of the philosophy this musical imparted. If nothing more-maybe by this discussion, lurkers and interested parties will really think about behavior and consequences-choices and ramifications. So, by playing our parts
I figure we ALL did good!

Good point! :)